PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EVANGELINE NUNAG, TIRSO V. DELAS ARMAS AND ARNEL ZAFRA, ACCUSED. EVANGELINE NUNAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Nunag

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Evangeline Nunag and two companions, Tirso delas Armas and Arnel Zafra, for robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries committed against Agueda Santos and her daughter Epifania Santos. Only Nunag ran the full course of trial and appeal; her co-accused delas Armas pleaded guilty and was committed for rehabilitation because of his minority, while Zafra remained at large. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons: it illustrates how conspiracy makes every participant a principal in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and it corrects a common pleading error by holding that there is no such crime as robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries.

Procedural History

Nunag, delas Armas, and Zafra were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 6. Nunag and delas Armas pleaded not guilty, but delas Armas later withdrew his plea and entered a plea of guilty, so the trial court rendered a partial judgment convicting him and, in view of his minority, suspended the imposition of sentence and ordered his commitment to a rehabilitation center. After trial, the trial court rendered a second partial judgment finding Nunag guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua, with joint and solidary liability for damages, while sending the record as to Zafra to the archives. Nunag appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors in the crediting of testimony, in the rejection of her claim of innocence, and in the finding of conspiracy.

Facts

On the morning of February 22, 1988, Leonides Mateo, the Santos family laundrywoman, was let in at the steel gate by Tirso delas Armas, who told her that his two companions were seeking employment from the Santoses. Agueda Santos allowed the three, namely Nunag, delas Armas, and Zafra, into the house. While they were inside, Mateo heard Agueda shouting the name Tirso twice, and peering through the jalousie window she saw the victim bloodied on the floor with Nunag on top of her in a straddling position. Delas Armas then poked a knife at Mateo and locked her in the kitchen.

When the police arrived, the victim was already being brought to the hospital, and her daughter Fanny identified Tirso and his companions as the malefactors. The police chased a girl running toward the open field and found Nunag inside a nipa hut with her left wrist slashed. Paper bills worth 2,317 pesos were recovered from the black jacket tied to her body, and inside its pocket were her identification cards, residence certificate, Social Security System cards, and photograph. Agueda Santos later died; the autopsy showed three head wounds and a fractured skull caused by a hard object, not a bladed instrument.

Nunag testified that she merely accompanied Tirso, who said he would get his clothes; that it was Tirso who struck the victim with a figurine while Zafra held the old woman's hands; that she tried to stop them and was pushed away; that she fled and slashed her wrist in despair; and that the jacket belonged to Tirso and she did not know it contained money. Delas Armas, testifying for the defense at Nunag's own insistence, described Nunag as holding the victim by the shoulders.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Tirso delas Armas and Leonides Mateo.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving weight to the appellant's claim of innocence.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the crime was correctly designated as robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the offense under Article 294, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court applies in characterizing the crime:

Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. Penalties. Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed. 3. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, when the violence or intimidation is not carried out and the offenders have not committed any of the crimes specified in the preceding paragraphs.

This provision fixes the penalty for the special complex crime and explains why the Court affirmed reclusion perpetua while correcting the designation of the offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no substance in the claim that delas Armas's testimony was fabricated. Delas Armas was never a prosecution witness; it was Nunag who insisted on using him, over the prosecution's vigorous objection. That he did not testify as she expected did not make his testimony concocted. The Court also found that his account and Mateo's were consistent: both showed Nunag sitting astride the victim's back while holding her by the shoulders, as demonstrated in open court.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of innocence. Nunag was seen running from the scene and was caught in a nipa hut in the middle of a ricefield with her wrist slashed, which the Court read as desperation, fear, and remorse. Her story that she ran to call a policeman was hard to believe, since the house stood in the town proper opposite a hospital, yet she scaled the wall and fled toward the ricefield. The money and her personal papers in the jacket she wore, which Mateo saw on her before the assault, belied her claim that the jacket was Tirso's.

On the third issue, the Court found conspiracy from the malefactors' concerted acts. They pretended to seek jobs, struck only after the husband left, cut the telephone line, and divided roles: Nunag sat astride the victim to prevent resistance while delas Armas poked a knife at Mateo and locked her in the kitchen. The Court stated the governing rule:

Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence or on occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the crime was misdesignated. Epifania Santos did not in fact suffer less serious physical injuries, and in any event there is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries. The offense is robbery with homicide regardless of the number of homicides or injuries, and these serve only as generic aggravating circumstances that may be offset by mitigating circumstances.

Doctrine

• When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all who took part as principals in the robbery are guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not take part in the killing, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent it.
• Conspiracy may be inferred from concerted acts betraying a common criminal design and unity of purpose, such as feigned job-seeking, cutting the telephone line, and the assignment of roles among the offenders.
• There is no special complex crime of robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries; the offense is denominated robbery with homicide regardless of the number of homicides or injuries, and the additional injuries are merely generic aggravating circumstances.
• Flight, concealment, and self-inflicted injury are circumstances consistent with guilt, and the accused's unexplained possession of the stolen money and of her own effects in the jacket she wore defeats her denial.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision with modification: Nunag was found guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and the indemnity for the victim's death was increased from 30,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that all who take part as principals in the robbery are principals in the robbery with homicide unless they clearly endeavored to prevent the killing. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy and the rule that the crime is always robbery with homicide, never robbery with homicide and less serious physical injuries.